Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: sjprg on May 08, 2010, 12:10:42 pm
-
I have tried several databased programs like Lightroom, Aperture, etc., and for very large collection of images (30,000 and more) it seems that locating a file is a hassle. What do I not understand about a database? Do you always use the search funcrion, and how do you remember the subject name? Also even though I setup the database using the "store in place" it seems like the finaly created catalog is huge for just containing pointers.
One use I can think of is having the DB create an invoice that could be printed for the customer, than you could track images loaded to the invoice. I haven;t seen any of the DBs setup that way.
Using Bridge I can find my files very quickly by setting up a filing system with Windows Explorer based on
Drive/year/month/day - subject name.
Even if I don't remember the subject name I can usualy remember the year and when spread out in the folder display, the names act like a memory jogger
Paul
-
How did you find them without using the DB? The file system is accessible from within LR.
Are you keywording your images?
-
I have tried several databased programs like Lightroom, Aperture, etc., and for very large collection of images (30,000 and more) it seems that locating a file is a hassle. What do I not understand about a database? Do you always use the search funcrion, and how do you remember the subject name? Also even though I setup the database using the "store in place" it seems like the finaly created catalog is huge for just containing pointers.
One use I can think of is having the DB create an invoice that could be printed for the customer, than you could track images loaded to the invoice. I haven;t seen any of the DBs setup that way.
Using Bridge I can find my files very quickly by setting up a filing system with Windows Explorer based on
Drive/year/month/day - subject name.
Even if I don't remember the subject name I can usualy remember the year and when spread out in the folder display, the names act like a memory jogger
Paul
Using Lightroom doesn't preclude using an organized structure within the framework of the operating system. It's not like you just dump all the cards on the drive with default names and then try to organize them within Lightroom. Most use a file structure simiar to what you describe.
The database can store prebuilt preview images, all metadata edits as well as a complete history of every edit. It also contains indexes to keywords and rating. With the ability to keyword, rate and create collections, it is very efficient to locate images, expecially if the search is across the full library.
-
Have you ever wanted to create a portfolio of, I dunno let's say, pretty girls or fast cars from a collection of all your images throughout the years? It is very easy to do that in a database without moving images or making copies. You can make these "collections" even though your images are stored in files chronologically. They can also be automatically updated / added to as long as you use criteria and keywords.
It's just like the card catalog in a library. The books can be organized by author from one end of the building to another, but if I want to find all the books on one subject, it gets tedious. LR lets you do both and many more.
Dave
-
You can make these "collections" even though your images are stored in files chronologically. They can also be automatically updated / added to as long as you use criteria and keywords.
Bridge got Collections and Smart Collections a couple of version ago...so that's not a database DAM only functionality...
The main DAM difference between Bridge and Lightroom's database is that Lightroom can remember what images were on what drive even if that drive isn't online...with Bridge, the images on a drive disappears the moment the drive is disconnected.
-
After playing with LR3 for a week or so, I find it doesen't really suit me. For my use I find that Bridge and PS do everything I need. Actually Bridge and ACR almost work for me like they are. All that is needed now in ACR is Shadow/Highlights and an output module that would let you save in various formats and I would not even need PS.
Regards
Paul
-
After playing with LR3 for a week or so, I find it doesen't really suit me. For my use I find that Bridge and PS do everything I need. Actually Bridge and ACR almost work for me like they are. All that is needed now in ACR is Shadow/Highlights and an output module that would let you save in various formats and I would not even need PS.
Regards
Paul
It's my understanding that output modules (like you describe) will be included in a soon-to-be-released update to Bridge.
-
It's my understanding that output modules (like you describe) will be included in a soon-to-be-released update to Bridge.
That would be nice, but I would rather see it in ACR. Many of us don't need the full PS, ACR would finish the image for us.
Paul
-
Thank god for the LR database. I just had to find a single photo out of several thousands. All I needed to do was to search my keywords for specific keywords and voila I had it within seconds. Of course every photo is keyworded with Place, Location, Person, Time, Lighting, Landscape, Seasons, Weather, Technique, etc.
Once you get in the habit of keywording all images after every shoot it makes perfect sense and doesn't take much time at all. What takes time is the inital keyword setup and the exercise to get them all done (I hired someone to et my database updated).
-
You get out what you put in.
Get the LR tutorials and you will have a much greater understanding of how to use such a tool and why.
-
After playing with LR3 for a week or so, I find it doesen't really suit me. For my use I find that Bridge and PS do everything I need. Actually Bridge and ACR almost work for me like they are. All that is needed now in ACR is Shadow/Highlights and an output module that would let you save in various formats and I would not even need PS.
Fill and recovery in ACR are better than Shadow/Highlights and you can output from ACR in various formats, there's also Image Processor in Bridge.
And for those who only want ACR, then get PS Elements.
-
Fill and recovery in ACR are better than Shadow/Highlights and you can output from ACR in various formats, there's also Image Processor in Bridge.
And for those who only want ACR, then get PS Elements.
With Elements you are back to a DB though. I guess it boils down to personal comfort level with any work flow. Maybe I have a strange workflow. First I use DXO's automated batch to create JPGs than I use the Bridge slide show for a quick look to see what I wish to pull for further work in ACR/PS
-
With Elements you are back to a DB though.
Not necessarily as the Mac version comes with Br.
I guess it boils down to personal comfort level with any work flow. Maybe I have a strange workflow. First I use DXO's automated batch to create JPGs than I use the Bridge slide show for a quick look to see what I wish to pull for further work in ACR/PS
Yup stange workflow!
You can produce JPEGs from Bridge using Image Processor, though not sure why one would even bother if you want to review for further processing particularly if you produce the JPEGs from a different rendering engine like DXO. Bridge can do a slideshow of the RAW files too, so why even convert to JPEGs to do this?
-
Not necessarily as the Mac version comes with Br.
Yup stange workflow!
You can produce JPEGs from Bridge using Image Processor, though not sure why one would even bother if you want to review for further processing particularly if you produce the JPEGs from a different rendering engine like DXO. Bridge can do a slideshow of the RAW files too, so why even convert to JPEGs to do this?
Because DXO has a much better "built in batch processor" which has an IQ almost as good as PS and it allows me to size and set the compression of the jpegs for email giving me and a client the preliminary look see.
One of the failing of PS is the batch processing unless you write a script. and not all of us wish to become script writers.
-
Because DXO has a much better "built in batch processor" which has an IQ almost as good as PS and it allows me to size and set the compression of the jpegs for email giving me and a client the preliminary look see.
One of the failing of PS is the batch processing unless you write a script. and not all of us wish to become script writers.
I can do exactly that and have no idea about writing scripts. I simply record what ever I want PS to do as an Action and can then run batch processes on images selected in Br if I want. There's also Image Processor that I mentioned above, which can output files to a size, type and compression of your choosing and also run a PS action too if you want.
Both Batch and Image Processor are to be found in Bridge/Tools/Photoshop menu.
It would appear you do not know the basic functionality of the programmes.
-
I can do exactly that and have no idea about writing scripts. I simply record what ever I want PS to do as an Action and can then run batch processes on images selected in Br if I want. There's also Image Processor that I mentioned above, which can output files to a size, type and compression of your choosing and also run a PS action too if you want.
Both Batch and Image Processor are to be found in Bridge/Tools/Photoshop menu.
It would appear you do not know the basic functionality of the programmes.
Lets just say that I have looked at your workflow before and If I hadn't owned DXO for several years I might have used your workflow.
BUT being lazy, doing a CRTL A, adding a name, hitting the go button and processing 800 images or so while going to breakfast appeals more to me. DXO's default settings work fine for 98% of what I do. If ACR had the same quick batch and output it would probably become my first choice as I do prefer the ACR adjustment interface.
Paul
-
Lets just say that I have looked at your workflow before and If I hadn't owned DXO for several years I might have used your workflow.
BUT being lazy, doing a CRTL A, adding a name, hitting the go button and processing 800 images or so while going to breakfast appeals more to me. DXO's default settings work fine for 98% of what I do. If ACR had the same quick batch and output it would probably become my first choice as I do prefer the ACR adjustment interface.
Paul
Uh, it does. And why I mentioned it in the above posts.